October 2001

Almost from the inception of our print paper in June 1999 with a new message of freedom and hope, we have seen our state start to make many changes. We have had a large impact. Many more people are now speaking out.

The subject of homosexuality in the schools is a good example. We watched the Boston Globe recant in 1999, only a few weeks after our first article on the subject. A year earlier, it had labeled its own columnist, Jeff Jacoby, as a “homophobe” who was a “high price to pay for freedom of the press.” But after our article appeared, they wrote two major stories in their Sunday paper on February 7. They acknowledged that 1) the “gay gene” is a myth and 2) homosexuals can, and do, change.

We listened attentively this year to Chet Curtis (now on New England Cable News) as he fairly and intelligently interviewed last month the teacher who had been at Fistgate, Margot Abels, and then the father who had taped her, Scott Whiteman.

We had finally heard an intelligent discussion of the issues as we had advocated and not the ranting and raving that still prevails in most of our state.

If we are going to discuss homosexuality in the schools intelligently, why don’t we also talk about the many health problems that exist with this lifestyle? Certainly, no one will deny they are there.

We’ve caused many other changes in the state. (For a few of them see our June issues in 2000 and 2001.)

The climate is changing as more people become aware of what is happening. The first politician who realizes this will be able to seize real leadership in the state.

Gov. Jane Swift realizes it to a point because she watched Paul Cellucci, after his appointment as Ambassador, being humbled in the U.S. Senate for his role in Fistgate. One of her first moves in office was to attempt to straddle the issue by declaring herself against gay marriage and in favor of domestic partnerships. This may win her an election if she gets no competition, but it will never gain her any fervent support.

She knows better as she attempts to deal with her stepson whose life is apparently being ruined by the lifestyle. But she apparently will not have the strength to deal with Margot Abels who will probably be going back to the Department of Education to influence more young children.

Atty. Gen. Tom Reilly also realizes the large undercurrent against what is going on. He angered the homosexual activists last month by approving the language of the Protection of Marriage amendment to the state constitution. He really didn’t have a choice without appearing to be fiercely partisan, but this has not stopped Massachusetts politicians in the past and he has always been an active supporter of homosexual causes.

It will be interesting to see how aggressively Reilly defends the state in the suit to force gay marriage which has been brought by the homosexual law firm GLAD. He has competent lawyers on the issue but will he allow them to do their best? Although he allowed the Constitutional Amendment to go forward, he did tinker with his lawyers’ summary of the Amendment that will appear on the ballot. It would appear that his best interest would be to put the burden on the Supreme Judicial Court and let them take the heat, which is apparently what he is doing.

What Should We be Writing About?

We would like to be informing people about these important issues:

Most women are working in 2001 solely to pay their family’s taxes. Those taxes have risen since 1950 from about 5% of a family’s income to about 40% today. The mothers of 1950 could stay home if that was their choice, but many have no choice today but to work to pay the family taxes.

The spending under Weld, Cellucci and Swift has risen just as fast as it did under the Democrats.

The income of the federal government doubled in the 1980s after Reagan’s tax cut, but no matter how much more money they received, the Democrat Congress spent even more, as opposed to what the Boston Globe is saying.

Our Congressmen at this time should be cutting spending instead of worrying about Bush’s tax cut. The tax cut which was passed earlier this year was not large enough to jump-start the sluggish economy which Bush had inherited. In addition, the significant cuts in taxes don’t happen until the last years of the ten-year plan, far too late to have any effect on our current problem. We should see more changes in the taxes if we want a healthy economy.

The current problems of many of the poor and of women are being caused by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was supposed to help them.

But important as those problems are, they pale compared to children in tragedy and agony. Our state government is responsible for much of that tragedy but we don’t want to recognize it. That is a double tragedy.

What Makes These Radicals So Powerful?

The radical women have gained so much power solely because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That law was passed to help black people. But because of a “joke” by Southern Democrats, the word “sex” was added as an attempt to defeat it. This fact was not reported in the newspapers in 1964 (did the New York Times fail to report it on purpose), and when the Act was passed, no one in the public realized that it included women.

But the radical feminists went to work immediately and made it much more important to women than it ever became to blacks.

These radical women acquired their power  because judges have held that the Act requires an equal number of women in every business. In the newsroom of the Boston Globe, for example, there must be as many women as men. That means that the women who want to be at home with their children will not be represented in that group of women in the newsroom. Therefore, the only women at the Globe are radical feminists.

The Globe and other businesses are afraid to speak out because they know they will be hauled into court for breaking the law. Even if they do win each lawsuit, they will be worn out from fighting them.

This is all explained in Freedom Will Conquer Racism and Sexism by J. Edward Pawlick, which can be purchased at Amazon or is free to all new subscribers of MassNews. We are planning to put the entire book on the Internet as soon as we can.

How MassNews Got ‘Sidetracked’ Onto Morality
Massachusetts Begins Reform
Women Who Dislike Men, Are they Lesbians?

Copyright ©2001 Massachusetts News, Inc. Photocopying and data processing storage of all or any part of this issue may not be made without prior written consent.